Why the anti-union animosity?

@Lash,

You must listen to Jim Cramer. LOL

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What are you trying to say? Unions are unions whether at the federal or state level. They have rights to negotiate and appeal for worker's rights.

You are incorrect. The Civil service act of 1978 expressly prohibits unions from representing federal employees from collective bargaining anout the work rule and compensation of the Federal employees they represent, and retains these function to the appropriate federal legislators and officials as essentially non delegatable government functions.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Those are pretty good benefits from where I sit; life-long job security. That stacks up better than civilian unions no matter how you cut it.

Oh I fully agrreed with that. However these benefits of Federal employment also existed long before Federal workers were given the right to unionize by JFK in the early 1060s. The unions didn't create them.

The interesting fact is unions representing Federal employees have very little they can do but collect dues and contribute them to Democrat candidates - could it be that this is the real motive for the whole enterprise ? I believe so.

Think about it a little before you jump into the argument.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

That analysis completely ignores the fact that Republicans regularly go around spending limits by funneling their corporate dollars through groups such as the Chamber of Commerce. But I'm sure you considered that before you posted it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I'm glad you have the honesty to acknowledge the undoubted probity of all tea-baggers, and avoid those messy questions of character.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

Your selective data ignores private contributions and the use of PACs, which doesn't surprise me.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

You just want to completely ignore that the Guv wants to loot an existing trust fund funded by the employees--and that doesn't surprise me.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

And I suppose you want me to believe that Dems only use unions for their fund-raising?

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

Quote:

Clearly unions are buying political influence and in far, far greater amounts than any business or capital-based organization.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

New Lobbying Reports Show Big Business Keeps Spending to Influence Politics
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/new-lobbying-reports-show-big.html

1 Reply

@hingehead,

slkshock must've never heard about the California legislators. LOL

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

And I suppose you want me to believe that Dems only use unions for their fund-raising?

Of course not. But that statement has nothing to do with the inaccurate claims you were making in your last post. The concept that the Dems are somehow the 'big money' party is ridiculous and you were forwarding what amounts to a lie.

The top 4 Republican PACs spent more than 90 million dollars on the 2010 election alone.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/10/election-2010-to-shatter-spending-r.html

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Set,
You implied that unions were somehow not afforded the same opportunities to buy political influence that business were and challenged me to provide evidence to support my assertion. I did so, providing clear evidence that they certainly do have same opportunity and in fact, purchase far more political influence than businesses.

Now you assert that private contributions and PACs somehow buy more influence for Dems than Repubs.

Well the same site has the data on that as well here

It's only for 2009-2010, but again adding up the numbers shows Dems receiving 72% of PAC dollars and the Repubs getting 28%.

So far I've done all the research...I'll let you do the research to see if it's three strikes for you or only two.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Of course, they spent lots of money...they were trying to win an election. But the issue is about buying political influence and from your same source:

Quote:

As of today, the Center calculates that Republicans have raised $1.64 billion to Democrats’ $1.59 billion. These figures include money raised by candidates and parties, and the money reported by outside organizations. The party split for outside money include independent expenditures on behalf of or against Democrats or Republicans; electioneering communications based on the general ideological leanings of the organization; and receipts by 527 organizations that are not already included elsewhere.

Don't try to convince me that a 3% difference makes the Repubs a party of money and the Dems not.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

Set,
Forget it...I've found the data and it is strike 3 for you...

Here's Open Secrets data on top 100 donors for 2008 election

Data shows $23.6M donated from top 100 individuals. Of that more than 71% was given to Dems and 29% to Repubs.

I only wish they had 2010 data posted because you might have some slight chance of winning the argument for that election cycle.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

The top 4 Republican PACs spent more than 90 million dollars on the 2010 election alone.

And two Unions (AFSCME And SEIU) spent $94M on the 2010 election alone....so who's lying?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

More Americans are employees than employers. Presumably, then, most Americans would have sympathy for fellow employees rather than for employers. Yet that sympathy often doesn't extend to fellow employees who are union members. I can understand if you're a boss who doesn't like unions, but I'm at a loss to understand why a worker wouldn't like them. Can someone explain this to me?

And of all the employees in America, some are union and some are not. Presumably, most non-union employees wouldn't give a rat's ass about squabbling between organized workers and their employers. And the unioned want sympathy from their "fellow" employees for their rights? That's a tough sell.

Of course - as you know - neither of our little rants has anything to do with animosity toward unions.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
The top 4 Republican PACs spent more than 90 million dollars on the 2010 election alone.

And two Unions (AFSCME And SEIU) spent $94M on the 2010 election alone....so who's lying?

Nobody; I never said that unions didn't spend money on elections. It was you who was leaving PACs out of your calculations.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Then you evidently agree that the AFSCME, SEIU, and AFT (unions which represent the majority of unionized government employees) are the chief contributors to the Democrat party.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Then you evidently agree that the AFSCME, SEIU, and AFT (unions which represent the majority of unionized government employees) are the chief contributors to the Democrat party.

Of course I agree with that - in terms of organizations who are spending money! Though, I will say that their contributions in the '08 election of Obama were dwarfed by that of individual citizens. The two biggest Dem vehicles for taking individual contributions, pooling them, and giving them to candidates - MoveOn and ActBlue - are both much, much larger than the unions.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

As i've already said, you take no consideration of individual contributions and PACs. Far from having struck out myself, i'm still waiting for you to show up at the ball park.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Set,
I've provided evidence supporting my argument on several occasions. You have yet to provide anything but words without substance.

1 Reply

Why the anti-union animosity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know